Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Uncle Tommy]

I'm curious, what is it exactly people object to about homosexuals? Humour me.

I have purposely not read through this thread. I will try to do so after posting I wanted to give you my initial response without being influenced.
To begin with I am what would be called a Fundamentalist Christian, I believe Scripture to be inerrant as a result of being inspired by God. I categorically deny that I object to homosexuals. I believe homosexuals to be just like me fallible human beings with a propensity to sin. I am hopelessly lost as is everyone except for the saving grace of God.

With that said if this question was something more along the lines of is homosexual sex a sin I would answer yes because the way I exegete the pertinent scriptural admonitions leads me to believe that God inspired men to reveal that it is. However so is lying, stealing, adultery, lust and many other sins that I have committed. Indeed there are many homosexuals who are more qualified to remove the beam from my eye before I remove their splinter.

It is the duty of all Christians to love their neighbors, not just their straight neighbors. In my opinion it is my duty share the Gospel with everyone I come in contact with and let the Holy Spirit deal with the particulars.

I hope this helps.

 

[Philothei]

It's not a personality issue. It is a reality issue.

Furthermore from a theological perpective it is an image and likness issue. What is the nature of man and who is he as man and woman in the eyes of God not in the eyes of man.. Man is not the center of the world. God is. Theocentric anthropology in theological terms Adam was created in God's image and Eve was created out of Adam's side. The two Adam and Eve "fit with each other" like a "puzzle" side by side.... They are created from the same material and share that oneness together as they "become one flesh". They fulfill each other... The idea of us be borned "bisexual" is not existant in Genesis.

 

[Ben-AG]

More of the same old same old anti-gay talking points
Of course it was. It was selectivley used to promote your agenda

Its intersting that you want others to “provide concrete support” for their claims but you happily use Paul Cameron and the FRI and then defend their usage with excessive indignation http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-36/#post51431668 (but no actual evidence in support of your claims)

LOL I cannot help to be amused.

SOURCES OF ALL THE ARTICLES I HAVE POSTED ONCE AGAIN
-Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).

-Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).

-S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, "Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men," Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).

Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2007

STD Surveillance, 2007 - Men Who Have Sex With Men

CDC - STD Surveillance, 2007 - Figure 37

HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (for the Public) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Link&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=6895005

The social construction of male homosexuality, related suicide problems and research proposals for the Twenty First Century

NIMH · Issues to Consider in Intervention Research with Persons at High Risk for Suicidality

Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men.

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems <-- Only NARTH cite


Addressing narth:

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems <--This website goes on to show different mental health problems and issues with suicide such as homosexuals 6x more likely to commit suicide as opposed to heterosexuals. I won't go in depth in this one but instead I'll let you formulate your own idea position on this one.

This is the only mention of narth in the entirety of my posts thus far. Although I don't believe it is a tainted source, I will concede it to you since you have such a quarrel against them.


As for Paul Cameron, I listed Paul Cameron amongst my references of my original post which included such statistics as:

- Depression & Anxiety is 1.5x higher in homosexuals
- Homosexuals are 1.5x more likely to be alcoholics or to abuse substances
- 73&#37; of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization
- Monogamy is virtually non-existent in homosexual relationships
- 78% of homosexuals have some kind of STD
- Average age of death amongst male homosexuals is 42...only 1% die of old age
- 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals
- Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person

I will also concede these to you, not to say that they all have false information, but seeing how I did not adequately research them beforehand but was given them.


Now, your concerns regarding my evidence and their sources may resume. ...unless of course Paul Cameron has influence at the CDC, Pubmed, the National Institue of Mental Health, and the National Center of Biotechnology Information, as well as published books all of which has been the bulk of my presented observations.



I also want to direct you back to a prior post of which I outlined where I stood.

As for giving gay couples the legal right to marry, I do not have a definite answer for you. I do not wish to impose my views or beliefs on someone who is not willing to listen as it may come off as presumptous and inconsiderate. Also, outlawing marriage for homosexuals may very well push homosexuals further away; making them feel ostracised from me, and if I'm too bold to presume, and the rest of the Christian community who feel homosexuality is wrong. When, on the contrary, I want them closer. I want to get to know them, help them if I can, answer any questions they may have on my beliefs.

Now, when I say I want to help them, that is not implying I am a better person than they are. We ALL are sinners, everyone of us is born bent; born into iniquity. Homosexuality is not the marquee sin. On the contrary, it's not any worse than any of the others; it's listed right amoung fornicators, thieves, drunkards, slanderers, & swindlers- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

And, I am called to love them...and I do. Just as I hope they can love me despite all my shortcomings and flaws because, the Lord knows, we all have them.

So, to answer your question, I am not a political person and could not be bold enough to take public office and impose my beliefs on someone else. But, if I had to make a decision with America how it is now, I wouldn't condemn legalizing gay marriage if the public really wanted it because of the reasons listed above. Who am I to judge someone? There is only one judge, and He sits on the highest most powerful throne.

But, maybe they could see it in their hearts to call it something else besides marriage out of simple consideration who do believe that that is a sacred union between man and wife...

I do NOT, in anyway, hate homosexuals. If I did, I would not have any reason to not hate myself as well. On the contrary, I love them the same way I can love myself.

 

[Shane Roach]

Fine. Then when is mental health ever an issue for allowing people to marry (outside of those who, due to their mental illness, are not deemed fit give informed consent)?

ETA: looking back, the post from which I clipped that sentence mentioned nothing of mental health; all it talked about was pretty much p-values. Which was unrelated to my point, so I left it out.

You're right after a fashion. It is not in the post you clipped. It is three posts above it on the same page.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-36/#post51431602

My mistake.

 

[BigBadWlf]

LOL I cannot help to be amused.

SOURCES OF ALL THE ARTICLES I HAVE POSTED ONCE AGAIN
-Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).

-Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).

-S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, "Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men," Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).

Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2007

STD Surveillance, 2007 - Men Who Have Sex With Men

CDC - STD Surveillance, 2007 - Figure 37

HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (for the Public) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

Related Articles for PubMed (Select 6895005) - PubMed Results

The social construction of male homosexuality, related suicide problems and research proposals for the Twenty First Century

NIMH · Issues to Consider in Intervention Research with Persons at High Risk for Suicidality

Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men.

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems <-- Only NARTH cite

For some reason you forgot to mention these references you made…

Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.

Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.

Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA. (just a side note here. “doctor” E. Fields is a known con artist who claims to be a chiropractor…which if true would certainly make him qualified to comment on mental health issues…[/sarcasm]…but he isn’t a chiropractor, or any other form of doctor. Again you might want to research the people you are using to justify prejudice, it didn’t take much to discover “Dr.” Fields decades long association with neo-nazism.

Addressing narth:

This is the only mention of narth in the entirety of my posts thus far. Although I don't believe it is a tainted source, I will concede it to you since you have such a quarrel against them.

It’s interesting how pretty much all of your claims are found somewhere in NARTH however

As for Paul Cameron, I listed Paul Cameron amongst my references of my original post which included such statistics as:

- Depression & Anxiety is 1.5x higher in homosexuals
- Homosexuals are 1.5x more likely to be alcoholics or to abuse substances
- 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization
- Monogamy is virtually non-existent in homosexual relationships
- 78% of homosexuals have some kind of STD
- Average age of death amongst male homosexuals is 42...only 1% die of old age
- 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals
- Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person

I will also concede these to you, not to say that they all have false information, but seeing how I did not adequately research them beforehand but was given them.

Will you ever bother to actually research the claims?

Now, your concerns regarding my evidence and their sources may resume. ...unless of course Paul Cameron has influence at the CDC, Pubmed, the National Institue of Mental Health, and the National Center of Biotechnology Information, as well as published books all of which has been the bulk of my presented observations.

You have an interesting definition of “bulk”

I do NOT, in anyway, hate homosexuals. If I did, I would not have any reason to not hate myself as well. On the contrary, I love them the same way I can love myself.

Love involves actually researching claims before attacking a minority

 

[Polycarp1]

Wlf, to be fair, Shane has started a "sources" thread, and in that I suggested that the bill of particulars against Cameron's errors and misrepresentations be spelled out. Do you have a good source for a thorough debunking of his work. I only know a few instances, and that without supporting documentation. Since Shane is willing to go to the sources, and reject ones with 'tainted' data, providing him, and others who may not know about Cameron, with the reasons he cannot be trusted would be a courtesy.

 

[Ben-AG]

For some reason you forgot to mention these references you made&#8230;

Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.

Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.

Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.(just a side note here. &#8220;doctor&#8221; E. Fields is a known con artist who claims to be a chiropractor&#8230;which if true would certainly make him qualified to comment on mental health issues&#8230;[/sarcasm]&#8230;but he isn&#8217;t a chiropractor, or any other form of doctor. Again you might want to research the people you are using to justify prejudice, it didn&#8217;t take much to discover &#8220;Dr.&#8221; Fields decades long association with neo-nazism.

Either I was not clear in my last post or you are intentionally trying to be difficult, but I will attempt to remove any ambiguity nonetheless. I have dismissed any claim I may have made with the "tainted" sources. Which includes:

- Depression & Anxiety is 1.5x higher in homosexuals
- Homosexuals are 1.5x more likely to be alcoholics or to abuse substances
- 73&#37; of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization
- Monogamy is virtually non-existent in homosexual relationships
- 78% of homosexuals have some kind of STD
- Average age of death amongst male homosexuals is 42...only 1% die of old age
- 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals
- Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person

All other claims were taken from:

SOURCES OF ALL THE ARTICLES I HAVE POSTED ONCE AGAIN
-Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, p. 112, New York: Penguin Group, 1998 (quoting gay writer Michael Lynch).

-Jon M. Richards, J. Michael Bedford, and Steven S. Witkin, "Rectal Insemination Modifies Immune Responses in Rabbits," Science, 27(224): 390-392 (1984).

-S. S. Witkin and J. Sonnabend, "Immune Responses to Spermatozoa in Homosexual Men," Fertility and Sterility, 39(3): 337-342, pp. 340-341 (1983).

Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2007

STD Surveillance, 2007 - Men Who Have Sex With Men

CDC - STD Surveillance, 2007 - Figure 37

HIV/AIDS and Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) (for the Public) | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

Related Articles for PubMed (Select 6895005) - PubMed Results

The social construction of male homosexuality, related suicide problems and research proposals for the Twenty First Century

NIMH &#183; Issues to Consider in Intervention Research with Persons at High Risk for Suicidality

Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men.

Now, if you actually read my posts, all my claims are supported by any one of these sources. If you do not agree with them, please provide evidence/support to the contrary.

It&#8217;s interesting how pretty much all of your claims are found somewhere in NARTH however

If NARTH acquires their information from similar sources as mine or the same sources, makes no difference; NARTH has the freedom to research anywhere they choose. Most of the sources I acquired data from are primary sources, and, just because NARTH uses the same data, does not make the data invalid or take anything away from it.

Will you ever bother to actually research the claims?

Maybe you're being difficult again?? Hard to say, I think. Please go back and read my posts...I'm beginning to think you haven't.

You have an interesting definition of &#8220;bulk"

If you see my first post which included the eight "tainted" statistics and see nothing else, then, yes, that is the bulk.

But, that makes you, sir, selectively blind.

 

[roflcopter101]

Uh, are you refuting your own statements?

Originally Posted by Ben-AG

Will you ever bother to actually research the claims?
​

Maybe you're being difficult again?? Hard to say, I think. Please go back and read my posts...I'm beginning to think you haven't.

 

[Shane Roach]

Wlf, to be fair, Shane has started a "sources" thread, and in that I suggested that the bill of particulars against Cameron's errors and misrepresentations be spelled out. Do you have a good source for a thorough debunking of his work. I only know a few instances, and that without supporting documentation. Since Shane is willing to go to the sources, and reject ones with 'tainted' data, providing him, and others who may not know about Cameron, with the reasons he cannot be trusted would be a courtesy.

<staff edit>

It took a significant amount of time to obtain a new copy of the study. My old copy has gone missing (just a lesson to people to organize and update files and papers regularly). The section you claim to be part of the study doesn&#8217;t exist. Given the history of the site Dailey published his essay on I would not be surprised to find they created a mock up to cover some of Dailey&#8217;s more obvious misrepresentations.

As I have said a couple of times, I got this from University of Texas. It is not a mock up. To claim you have the paper cited and that it does not have the information it clearly contains leaves me little space at all to trust things you say either now or in the future.

Here is the heading of the download:

Here is the page with the information. Note it is on the exact page as the citation. Areas blacked out are to avoid copyright violation by posting too large a percentage of the entire article.

Here is my original highlighted closeup.

Here is the original citation from Dailey and a link to the page I found it.

10. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

Homosexual & Healthy?

You also made some claims about another paper I have been able to locate.

Dolcini &#8220;Demographic Characterizes of Heterosexuals with Multiple Partners: The National AIDS Behavioral Surveys&#8221; Family Planning Perspectives. 1993. Vol. 25 (5): 203-214 found gay men had significantly fewer sexual partners compared to heterosexual men:
Gay men:
0 partners-10.5&#37;,
1 partner-77.9%,
2 or more-11.2%
heterosexual men:
0 partners-17.9%,
1 partner 53.1.9%
2 or more 29.1%

First off, there is no homosexual data in the entirety of this article. The following excerpt explains why, but obviously I would have to post the entire article to prove my statement, which again because of copyright I cannot do.

Oh, here's the heading, just for reference. It again makes it clear that there was no intention to do any research whatsoever on gays in this study.

Finally, here are the actual percentage of married men and their number of partners. You stated it was 53.1.9% (an obvious error from the beginning) that had only the one partner (presumably usually their spouse), but the actual percentages are in the 90's.

<staff edit>

 

[Ben-AG]

Uh, are you refuting your own statements?

Whoops! Sorry - Fixed

 

[Wyzaard]

I provide no concrete evidence because the subject is not amenable to concrete evidence.

Then do not make concrete claims and advocate for concrete policies.

 

[sidhe]

Then do not make concrete claims and advocate for concrete policies.

^This. Concrete claims require concrete evidence. It's why circumstantial evidence generally isn't used in court.

 

[Shane Roach]

Then do not make concrete claims and advocate for concrete policies.

In my opinion you are making concrete claims but not supporting them.

What I am saying is that I am able to disprove concretely a lot of what is being claimed about homosexuality, and I am also able to make my own case to a level that is superior to yours.

In neither case is there a superior, concrete, obvious solution, but I feel mine is demonstrably the better case.

 

[Shane Roach]

^This. Concrete claims require concrete evidence. It's why circumstantial evidence generally isn't used in court.

Which you are not providing, which in fact are not possible to provide in this case because of all we do not know, either you or me.

 

[LightHorseman]

Which you are not providing, which in fact are not possible to provide in this case because of all we do not know, either you or me.

Well here seems to be the crux... some of us would rather not discriminate against and persecute people without evidence that doing so is somehow beneficial.

You would appear to want to do so in the hope that it is.

 

[Shane Roach]

Well here seems to be the crux... some of us would rather not discriminate against and persecute people without evidence that doing so is somehow beneficial.

You would appear to want to do so in the hope that it is.

This is a matter of perception that most on your side simply do not address. From my perspective you are attempting to stamp all over some pretty simple and straight forward, and necessary, distinctions, hurting many for only nominal benefit of a few.

I also note that by and large, it is the gay activists and their supporters here who tend to try to make this personal, such as using charged words and phrases like, "discriminate against and persecute," rather than acknowledging the fact that they are the ones pushing a very controversial agenda.

To me, there is absolutely no sign of any persecution of gays here. They want benefits related to marriage despite the fact that they have few if any of the responsibilities related. Many of the people supporting them really don't want much of anything except to see Christianity further marginalized. All the beneficiaries of this push are liberal in their agendas.

 

[LightHorseman]

This is a matter of perception that most on your side simply do not address. From my perspective you are attempting to stamp all over some pretty simple and straight forward, and necessary, distinctions, hurting many for only nominal benefit of a few.

But you have no compelling reason to believe many are going to be hurt!

 

[Shane Roach]

But you have no compelling reason to believe many are going to be hurt!

I've actually yet to see any of you do anything with the compelling reasons I and others have presented other than ignore them or mock anyone who raises them. I have found 4 separate occasions where things supporters of gay marriage have said were simply demonstrably false, I have pointed out that liberal agendas concerning marriage have had a negative effect on our families already, that gay unions and marriages are associated with further family breakdown where they have been instituted, and that kids benefit from the usual two opposite sex pattern tradition.

The response I get is always, "but you can't prove that." Well, I feel I have demonstrated it to a high degree of probability, and that most of you feel you owe me and everyone else nothing. Basically, in your opinions, you honestly seem to feel that as long as you can in decent conscience simply refuse to address the issue, you are right.

I find it difficult to understand why you then feel you are making such a convincing case for what you want.

 

[LightHorseman]

I've actually yet to see any of you do anything with the compelling reasons I and others have presented other than ignore them or mock anyone who raises them. I have found 4 separate occasions where things supporters of gay marriage have said were simply demonstrably false, I have pointed out that liberal agendas concerning marriage have had a negative effect on our families already, that gay unions and marriages are associated with further family breakdown where they have been instituted, and that kids benefit from the usual two opposite sex pattern tradition.

The response I get is always, "but you can't prove that." Well, I feel I have demonstrated it to a high degree of probability, and that most of you feel you owe me and everyone else nothing. Basically, in your opinions, you honestly seem to feel that as long as you can in decent conscience simply refuse to address the issue, you are right.

I find it difficult to understand why you then feel you are making such a convincing case for what you want.

Oh come on! You seem to be suffering from a somewhat selective memory. Just the other day you, after much massaging, agreed that you didn't have any evidence to believe that homosexual unions were responsible for any sort of breakdown, and that it was indeed more likely that homosexual unions being given any sort of recognition is a result of what you percieve as a break down, NOT the other way around.

As for the kids issue, as I'm sure has been pointed out to you, that while yes, the best conditions for healthy well balanced children is in the charge of two loving committed parents, this is;
a. Not the guaranteed case in all heterosexual marriages,
b. Not what occurs in single parent families, yet I see no move from you or others like you to try to have the constitution diminish the recognition of single parent families, which gives an impression of special pleading or double standards,
c. Not obtainable to all kids in need of adoption, and while two loving same sex parents may not be AS good as two loving hetero parents (to a debateable degree) it still must be plain to even you that loving same sex parents are a darned sight better for the kid than institutional care.
d. An irrelevent red herring in the case of the many homosexual couples who don't want children. Remember, there is no requirement, either explicit or implied, that heterosexuals can marry ONLY if they intend to or are capable of having children, or even that, if they do, they would be good or capable parents, so again, discriminating against homosexuals for something that heterosexuals get a free pass on seems like another double standard to me.

 

[Maren]

I also note that by and large, it is the gay activists and their supporters here who tend to try to make this personal, such as using charged words and phrases like, "discriminate against and persecute," rather than acknowledging the fact that they are the ones pushing a very controversial agenda.

Actually, I don't see that most here do that but rather just a couple of people. Personally, I think they toss the terms around far too freely.

But I find it ironic you keep claiming this as you are one that keeps trying to make this personal -- you are the one who seems to think the whole gay rights movement is a giant conspiracy to promote socialism and to destroy Christianity (like you claim below). In fact, you seem to argue that you are the one being persecuted.

In fact, you've accused me of attacking you personally on more than one occasion. Yet, when I've asked you to point it out you've never responded. Though I'm sure you will view this post of mine as a personal attack, even though it is merely an observation about your arguments.

To me, there is absolutely no sign of any persecution of gays here. They want benefits related to marriage despite the fact that they have few if any of the responsibilities related. Many of the people supporting them really don't want much of anything except to see Christianity further marginalized. All the beneficiaries of this push are liberal in their agendas.

Sorry, this just flat out isn't true. First, many of those supporting gay rights are Christian. Second, being for gay rights does not make a person a liberal. One example is the Log Cabin Republicans, who are all for, "limited government, strong national defense, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty." So, no, not "all the beneficiaries of this push are liberal in their agendas" (maybe not even most). And the simplest fact of all is that many of us arguing here for gay marriage (and other gay rights) well never see any benefit from it at all (other than happiness at seeing gays treated equally).